Quashed

M/s.Sua Explosives and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Madras HC3 Jan 2022WP/14173/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) in violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing and their reply was rejected without being taken on record.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.01.2020 quashed; case remitted to respondent to pass speaking order within 30 days considering the reply and offering personal hearing.

M/s.Sua Explosives and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

WP.No.14173 of 2020 and WMP.No.17966 of 2020

¶6

[Video Conferencing]

¶7

M/s.Sua Explosives and Accessories Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director, Mr.S.R.Kalyanam, Door No.260, Mathagondapalli Post, Royakotta Road, Onnalvadi Post, Hosur 635 109. ....Petitioner

¶8

-Vs.-

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Hosur (South) – II Hosur. .....Respondent

¶10

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Respondent in the impugned order GSTIN : 33AADCS0689R1ZQ/2017-18 (TIN:33733360449/2017-18) dated 20.01.2020 as it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.J.Yeswanthram, for Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.Richardson Wilson, A.G.P.,

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶15

2.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the respondent. The impugned order preceded a notice dated 26.07.2019, which according to the petitioner, was received by the petitioner only on 12.09.2019 and that on 23.09.2019, the petitioner had requested time till 09.10.2019.

¶16

3.It is the further case of the petitioner that an attempt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was made by the petitioner to file a reply on 03.10.2019,

¶17

however, the said request was rejected and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as neither the reply dated 03.10.2019 was taken on record nor an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2020. The facts on record would indicate that though the petitioner was initially called for personal hearing in the notice dated 26.07.2019, thereafter no notice was issued to the petitioner for personal hearing.

¶18

4.When this case came up before this Court on last occasion, it was adjourned for the respondent to verify as to whether the impugned order was passed after following the principles of natural justice or not. Today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent fairly submits that the impugned order has been passed without calling the petitioner for personal hearing.

¶19

5.Since the order has been passed without calling the petitioner for personal hearing, there is manifest violation of principles of natural justice. Considering the same, the impugned order dated 20.01.2020 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall also entertain the reply dated 03.10.2019 of the petitioner and the additional written submissions, if any before passing any order. If desired, the petitioner may also request the respondent to call upon the petitioner for personal hearing either in person or through video conferencing.

¶20

6.The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶23

//True copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

pgp

¶26

¶27

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Hosur (South) – II, Hosur.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran, Advocate SR.No.

¶29

+1cc to Special Government Pleader SR.No.859

¶30

W.P.No.14173 of 2020

¶31

SMI(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GMY(25/01/2022)

M/s.Sua Explosives and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sua Explosives and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arval India Private Limited Vs State of Tamil Nadu

healthcubed India Private Limited Vs The Deputy commissioner (St)

M/s.Sekar Constructions, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Sambros Tex Global Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of customs (Exports)

M/s. Clean Swicth India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s. Arr Chenani Gateway Vs The Government of TamilNadu